This Part goes on to examine the subsequent state practice of major
destination countries to determine if they are acting as though they have an
obligation to prevent trafficking transnationally. It then examines the travaux
preparatoires of this paragraph, to clarify its intended scope. This interpretive
project concludes that 9(4) does indeed create strong transnational obligations on
all States Parties to alleviate the root causes of trafficking in countries of origin.
Part V goes beyond the interpretation strategy set out in the Vienna
Convention. It presents three reasons why the United States (the "US" or the
"United States") may have introduced this paragraph into the Protocol. Firstly it
explains how President Clinton was keen to build a legacy of protecting and
promoting women's rights. This legacy was built over his eight years in office,
and was met with considerable political resistance in most areas except human
trafficking. As a result, Clinton led the charge of human trafficking and brought
the issue to prominence in the international arena.
Second, this Part argues that the United States had already drafted domestic
legalization that would require it to establish prevention programs in countries
of origin. It posits that the United States introduced this strong obligation in the
Protocol in order to ensure other countries of destination shared the burden that
the US had already established for itself in domestic legislation. It finally argues
that countries of destination including the US have pursued policies of border
control externalization. Under this policy, destination countries encourage and support increased border control in origin and transit countries. This policy
could be easily expanded to prevention measures, and may be an additional
reason why all the signatory destination countries signed themselves up for these
obligations -in order to keep the problem off their territory.
The paper concludes that in the context of transnational prevention
programs to address root causes of trafficking, States Parties have strong
mandatory obligations. These obligations override the less onerous due diligence
obligations imposed under human rights law. However, at this stage the content
and details surrounding this rule are unclear. This provision is a skeletal starting
point, one that will hopefully be given flesh through further development in this
area. By highlighting this overlooked and rough gem, this paper seeks to
motivate actors in civil society and government to further develop the notion of a
shared responsibility to prevent human trafficking. It calls on the anti-trafficking
movement to take future action in this direction.